Re: [討教] 「人物」、「武功」的比較
→ tnpaul:我認為左右互搏真的只有譁眾意味 鏞自以為創出新招成為一股 09/30 12:29
→ tnpaul:清流 把讀者唬傻傻 沒理由雙手使的武功化為單手效率依舊 09/30 12:30
→ tnpaul:一個身體也不可能同時使出兩套身法 因此小弟很早前就認為 09/30 12:31
→ tnpaul:左右互搏跟百花錯拳具有類似性質 以奇制勝為本 譁眾取寵為 09/30 12:31
→ tnpaul:實 雙手劍也沒理由絕對勝過單手劍 左右互搏:失敗的產物!!! 09/30 12:34
→ tnpaul:如果對手使用軍方格鬥技的話 你兩手剛想好配啥招 後頸已經 09/30 12:37
→ tnpaul:被一根鐵釘穿過了 武功嘛 本來就不是以實用為目的 不然怎麼 09/30 12:37
→ tnpaul:會被稱為武藝呢??
我也認為雙手互博威力絕對沒有乘以二那麼誇張
不過說成譁眾取寵卻也未免太過
(話說一個為本一個為實到底是怎麼樣,不都是裡面的東西?)
請注意我們這裡討論的是小說
威力強弱以小說裡的表現為主
設定上全真劍法配上玉女劍法是沒有破綻的
是以小龍女一學會雙手互搏威力徒升一倍(或以上)很合理
郭靖練到能同時運使空明拳跟降龍十八掌
剛柔並濟令人難防
以小說的理路來說也不矛盾(金庸也沒有直說威力是兩倍)
要說現實的話雙手劍當然未必勝單手劍
不然西洋劍跟劍道比賽
只怕個個都拿雙劍
至於都和人對打了還在想雙手要如何配招
這種人不用軍隊格鬥技
只學過一點粗淺國術的區區在下
大概也不輸與他
(郭靖如果是臨敵還會想配招的人
就如同小說中寫的
等他落在了地上,才會想到「咦,我剛剛怎麼不扳他大腿」)
另外會說”武功本來就不是以實用為目的”這種話
並故意曲解”武藝”的意思來貶低之的人
大抵是沒見過什麼真功夫的人
倒也不用在意
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 125.232.137.174
推
09/30 14:40, , 1F
09/30 14:40, 1F
→
09/30 14:41, , 2F
09/30 14:41, 2F
推
09/30 14:50, , 3F
09/30 14:50, 3F
→
09/30 14:51, , 4F
09/30 14:51, 4F
推
09/30 15:10, , 5F
09/30 15:10, 5F
推
09/30 15:10, , 6F
09/30 15:10, 6F
→
09/30 15:10, , 7F
09/30 15:10, 7F
→
09/30 15:11, , 8F
09/30 15:11, 8F
推
09/30 15:26, , 9F
09/30 15:26, 9F
推
09/30 16:04, , 10F
09/30 16:04, 10F
→
09/30 16:05, , 11F
09/30 16:05, 11F
→
09/30 16:11, , 12F
09/30 16:11, 12F
→
09/30 16:12, , 13F
09/30 16:12, 13F
→
09/30 16:12, , 14F
09/30 16:12, 14F
→
09/30 16:20, , 15F
09/30 16:20, 15F
→
09/30 16:21, , 16F
09/30 16:21, 16F
推
09/30 16:31, , 17F
09/30 16:31, 17F
→
09/30 16:33, , 18F
09/30 16:33, 18F
推
09/30 18:19, , 19F
09/30 18:19, 19F
→
09/30 18:20, , 20F
09/30 18:20, 20F
→
09/30 18:21, , 21F
09/30 18:21, 21F
→
09/30 18:23, , 22F
09/30 18:23, 22F
推
09/30 20:01, , 23F
09/30 20:01, 23F
→
09/30 20:03, , 24F
09/30 20:03, 24F
→
09/30 20:03, , 25F
09/30 20:03, 25F
→
09/30 23:37, , 26F
09/30 23:37, 26F
→
09/30 23:39, , 27F
09/30 23:39, 27F
→
09/30 23:39, , 28F
09/30 23:39, 28F
→
10/02 07:46, , 29F
10/02 07:46, 29F
→
10/02 07:47, , 30F
10/02 07:47, 30F
→
10/02 07:49, , 31F
10/02 07:49, 31F
→
10/02 07:50, , 32F
10/02 07:50, 32F
→
10/02 07:52, , 33F
10/02 07:52, 33F
→
10/02 07:53, , 34F
10/02 07:53, 34F
→
10/02 10:10, , 35F
10/02 10:10, 35F
→
10/02 10:29, , 36F
10/02 10:29, 36F
→
10/02 10:38, , 37F
10/02 10:38, 37F
→
10/02 10:40, , 38F
10/02 10:40, 38F
→
10/02 10:40, , 39F
10/02 10:40, 39F
還有 35 則推文
→
10/02 12:34, , 75F
10/02 12:34, 75F
→
10/02 12:36, , 76F
10/02 12:36, 76F
→
10/02 12:38, , 77F
10/02 12:38, 77F
→
10/02 13:07, , 78F
10/02 13:07, 78F
→
10/02 13:07, , 79F
10/02 13:07, 79F
→
10/02 13:09, , 80F
10/02 13:09, 80F
→
10/02 13:10, , 81F
10/02 13:10, 81F
→
10/02 13:30, , 82F
10/02 13:30, 82F
→
10/02 13:31, , 83F
10/02 13:31, 83F
→
10/02 13:32, , 84F
10/02 13:32, 84F
→
10/02 13:34, , 85F
10/02 13:34, 85F
→
10/02 13:51, , 86F
10/02 13:51, 86F
→
10/02 13:52, , 87F
10/02 13:52, 87F
→
10/02 13:52, , 88F
10/02 13:52, 88F
→
10/02 13:53, , 89F
10/02 13:53, 89F
→
10/02 13:54, , 90F
10/02 13:54, 90F
→
10/02 14:13, , 91F
10/02 14:13, 91F
→
10/02 14:15, , 92F
10/02 14:15, 92F
→
10/02 14:16, , 93F
10/02 14:16, 93F
→
10/02 14:16, , 94F
10/02 14:16, 94F
推
10/02 14:30, , 95F
10/02 14:30, 95F
→
10/02 14:30, , 96F
10/02 14:30, 96F
→
10/02 14:39, , 97F
10/02 14:39, 97F
→
10/02 14:40, , 98F
10/02 14:40, 98F
→
10/02 14:41, , 99F
10/02 14:41, 99F
→
10/02 15:10, , 100F
10/02 15:10, 100F
→
10/02 15:10, , 101F
10/02 15:10, 101F
→
10/02 18:26, , 102F
10/02 18:26, 102F
→
10/02 18:26, , 103F
10/02 18:26, 103F
→
10/02 19:40, , 104F
10/02 19:40, 104F
→
10/02 19:41, , 105F
10/02 19:41, 105F
→
10/02 21:17, , 106F
10/02 21:17, 106F
→
10/02 21:17, , 107F
10/02 21:17, 107F
→
10/02 23:38, , 108F
10/02 23:38, 108F
→
10/02 23:40, , 109F
10/02 23:40, 109F
→
10/02 23:41, , 110F
10/02 23:41, 110F
→
10/02 23:42, , 111F
10/02 23:42, 111F
→
10/02 23:43, , 112F
10/02 23:43, 112F
→
10/03 13:00, , 113F
10/03 13:00, 113F
→
10/03 13:00, , 114F
10/03 13:00, 114F
討論串 (同標題文章)